Early Neutral Evaluation is used in many different types of family law cases, not just finances. It provides a valuable opportunity for parties to gain a realistic understanding of their case early on and explore resolution options, promoting a more efficient and collaborative approach to dispute resolution.

In a case brought before the court for a financial remedy the court process typically involves three hearings. The first is called a First Direction Appointment. This is used to define and narrow the issues between parties.

 
The second hearing is called a Financial Dispute Resolution appointment (“FDR”). These were introduced about 25 years ago when the courts took the first steps to actively assist the parties in achieving resolution. The purpose of this hearing is for a judge to guide the parties on what order he or she would make if they were determining the case based upon the information before them.

 
The judge’s comments or guidance which is not binding can assist the parties reach settlement. In the last few years, the number of FDR’s a judge must deal with in a morning or afternoon has increased and they now typically have two or three to deal with. With the lack of time available the parties sometimes don’t get as much out of the hearings as was initially envisaged. Judges are very capable but with the best will in the world dealing with three types of these cases is a burden.

More recently, however, cases are often removed from the court list owing to what the courts call ‘lack of judicial availability’. In other words, there is no judge to hear the case.

 
You may imagine that having undertaken a lot of work and taken time off work to attend court to have your case considered that having it taken out of the list, at such short notice is frustrating. Where this happens, we often try to again promote the idea of a Neutral Evaluation. Where this happens, lawyers call it a Private FDR, as it is a hearing conducted privately but it is effectively the same as a Neutral Evaluation.

FDR is the term used by lawyers for a Financial Dispute Resolution appointment. An FDR is, typically, the second of three hearings in a financial remedy case.

Neutral evaluation is often used in the middle of court proceedings. Whilst we always seek to avoid proceedings, sometimes the court process is such that early neutral evaluation can be used. This may be because the court process is too slow to list a hearing, or the case is bumped out of the court list at short notice because of the lack of judges. In this case, instead of allowing the case to be delayed for months, we can arrange a Private FDR. Both parties need to be willing, and an agreement reached as to who is going to pay for the neutral evaluator or ‘private judge’.

We have used these very effectively in the past. They can take place remotely via a video platform. The benefit of these hearings is that you maintain control over the process in terms of choosing the judge or evaluator, the location and time of the hearing. These can take place at a solicitor’s office, barristers’ chambers or using a conference centre or hotel.

We can advise on the appropriateness of such a hearing.

1. Efficiency - Private FDRs are often more time-efficient because the delay from a First Directions Appointment to an FDR is usually at least three months.  You and your ex-partner have more control over choosing an earlier ‘hearing’, allowing you to move the resolution process along swiftly.

2. Flexible timing - Parties have the flexibility to choose a time and date for the private FDR that suits all involved. This flexibility can be particularly beneficial for individuals with busy schedules, especially when adjusting to living as single parents or those who prefer to resolve matters quickly.

3. Tailored process - The private FDR process can be tailored to the specific needs of the parties. It allows for a more personalized and focused approach to dispute resolution compared to the more formal and rigid court process.

4. Choice of specialist -In a private FDR, parties can choose a specialist with expertise in family law and financial matters. Sometimes, judges may have little experience in family work having previously practised in other areas of the law. This allows for a more informed and targeted evaluation of the case.

5. Confidentiality - Private FDR proceedings are typically confidential. This encourages open communication between you and your ex-partner, as you can freely discuss your financial positions without needing to worry that comments will be used against you in future court proceedings. You also avoid a visit to your local court building.

6. Reduced stress - The private FDR setting is generally less formal and confrontational than a courtroom. This can contribute to a less stressful environment for you and your ex-partner promoting a more cooperative and solution-focused approach.

7. Preservation of relationships - Family relationships are often strained during legal disputes. The private FDR process emphasises collaboration and resolution, which can help preserve relationships, especially important in cases involving ongoing co-parenting responsibilities.

8. Cost savings - While private FDR involves some costs, it can be more cost effective than protracted court proceedings. The efficiency and focused nature of the process often results in reduced legal fees and associated expenses.

9. Creative solutions - Private FDR allows for more creative and customised solutions. You and your ex-partner, with the help of your neutral facilitator, can explore various options for financial settlements that may better meet your unique needs and circumstances.

10. Control over the outcome - The private FDR process empowers you to actively participate in crafting your own settlement. This sense of control over the outcome can mean greater satisfaction with the final agreement.